Don't vote Tory

[Thunderstruck]

3 minutes ago, evilduck said:

The means to test who should qualify for free lunches can be expensive and sometimes inaccurate, also you can have rich parents who don't give a shit about their kids and still send them to school with no food. Giving all kids free lunches puts them all on an even start.

I think the number of children being sent to school by rich parents without food is likely to be tiny. If the means test is inaccurate then a sliding scale of how much people get could help dampen that down. I just don't think there's a strong enough argument for paying for all children's school meals. I'd much prefer money to be spent on improving nutrition and general health.

[eFestivals]

 

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I specifically didn't say that, in fact I said "It'd be a big job". There isn't a magic fix

which is precisely why I was pointing out there's no magic fix.

This a policy where the expectations of most people who support nationalisation won't be delivered, and as a result it's likely to be regarded as a failure.

It's all very proposing the policy, but a party that does so also needs to manage the public's expectations of that policy - whereas Corbyn is proposing magic. For everything.

[Thunderstruck]

1 minute ago, mjsell said:

Have you ever worked in a school?

No I haven't, but I have been to school.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Worse?   I agree there is, but ha ha, you think what happened after 2010 is worse than what happened after 2015? 

what happened in 2010 was a tony minority, as it seems to have passed you by in your reply there.

Only on one of those occasions did the tories need some little helpers to help attack the NHS, and despite that attack on the NHS not being in the tory manifesto some decided to help with the attack.

[FrancisH]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I want something better, not a fantasy of something better. You get something better by being better, not by self-anointing yourself as better.

After all, the problem with the tories winning happens via the same fantasy of something better. Doing the same idiot thing only makes someone the same idiot.

Just out of interest, is there anyone in recent years that has come close to your estimations of something better? - I'm fairly sure you had problems with Ed (apologies if wrong), Greens is arguably a 'fantasy of something better' as well, Lib Dems you've just ruled out. And you're certainly not Conservative...

 

So surely Corbyn most closely represents your 'something better', but you won't accept that he has a realistic chance... (which is fine, I don't think so either) - But since 'better' options are few and far between, surely it'd be better to just get behind him, or at the very least stop doing him down all the time. I don't know, just my thoughts.

Edited May 22, 2017 by FrancisH

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

which is precisely why I was pointing out there's no magic fix.

This a policy where the expectations of most people who support nationalisation won't be delivered, and as a result it's likely to be regarded as a failure.

It's all very proposing the policy, but a party that does so also needs to manage the public's expectations of that policy - whereas Corbyn is proposing magic. For everything.

Well no, it'd take a long time to pay off. But frankly, even if this was a policy of nationalisation plus massive investment in our rail infrastructure, it'd take a long time to pay off. Infrastructure projects like that always do. They certainly won't pay off within in the parliament in which they're enacted. So by that logic, they're always going to appear to be a failure. In which case we shouldn't bother?

[clarkete]

6 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

I think the number of children being sent to school by rich parents without food is likely to be tiny. If the means test is inaccurate then a sliding scale of how much people get could help dampen that down. I just don't think there's a strong enough argument for paying for all children's school meals. I'd much prefer money to be spent on improving nutrition and general health.

How are they being means tested? 

I heard an old lady on r4 saying that they give you an intrusive questionnaire asking about how much your spend on different aspects of your life.  Some people don't like to fill it in, therefore savings even better delighting the minister and the poor recipients go wanting. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by clarkete

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, FrancisH said:

Just out of interest, is there anyone in recent years that has come close to your estimations of something better? - I'm fairly sure you had problems with Ed (apologies if wrong), Greens is arguably a 'fantasy of something better' as well, Lib Dems you've just ruled out. And you're certainly not Conservative...

I can't remember slagging off Ed particularly - because he put forwards a platform that enough people might have believed in to support.

 

1 minute ago, FrancisH said:

So surely Corbyn most closely represents your 'something better', but you won't accept that he has a realistic chance... (which is fine, I don't think so either) - But since 'better' options are few and far between, surely it'd be better to just get behind him, or at the very least stop doing him down all the time. I don't know, just my thoughts.

I wouldn't have to be down on him if he stood a chance of winning.

Which came first? Jezza's no chance or me pointing out that no chance?

No chance is nothing better.

[mjsell]

4 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

No I haven't, but I have been to school.

Ah right, that'll qualify you to have a more valid opinion than those that deal with this issue on a daily basis then.

I have never understood why people and politicions think they are better equipped than those with real experience to make pivotal decisions in regards to our education system.

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

what happened in 2010 was a tony minority, as it seems to have passed you by in your reply there.

Only on one of those occasions did the tories need some little helpers to help attack the NHS, and despite that attack on the NHS not being in the tory manifesto some decided to help with the attack.

You seem to miss my point, wilfully of course.  I think what they did after 2010 was bad, but what they did alone is worse.  

I didn't like them being in a coalition with the tories, but they've worked with several other parties around the country before (you have to if you're a third party) and they were pushed into choosing either to leave a minority government trying to get votes for every policy  or supporting brown (who at the time was the most unpopular pm in history). 

Edited May 22, 2017 by clarkete

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Well no, it'd take a long time to pay off. But frankly, even if this was a policy of nationalisation plus massive investment in our rail infrastructure, it'd take a long time to pay off. Infrastructure projects like that always do. They certainly won't pay off within in the parliament in which they're enacted. So by that logic, they're always going to appear to be a failure. In which case we shouldn't bother?

They won't appear to be that failure if people know what to expect from it - which is why I pointed out managing public expectation, by engaging with the reality which is absent from so much of corbyn's proposals.

For example in one of the posts on this forum (perhaps not this thread) someone (essentially) said "nationalisation = cheaper trains". That's the sort of idea which is running riot because of the lack of management of expectations.

[Thunderstruck]

1 minute ago, mjsell said:

Ah right, that'll qualify you to have a more valid opinion than those that deal with this issue on a daily basis then.

I have never understood why people and politicions think they are better equipped than those with real experience to make pivotal decisions in regards to our education system.

So what's the valid opinion then? Genuinely interested to hear it because other than the fact you support free school meals you've given no evidence as to why. 

[FrancisH]

Just now, eFestivals said:

because he put forwards a platform that enough people might have believed in to support.

I'd have to disagree on that, I remember being pretty certain that Ed was going to spectacularly fail, which I didn't want him to. He did have what should have been a popular platform, but his message delivery was even worse than Corbyn's, which everyone glosses over. I remember the intense frustration after every speech he made, that it was poor, or missed the mark, or completely robotic.
 

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I wouldn't have to be down on him if he stood a chance of winning.

As above though, neither did Ed, neither do most with such a bitter rightwing press. All Labour leaders since Blair have been 'unelectable' in their eyes - I'd go as far as to say Labour generally, and not just Corbyn, has been a 'fantasy of something better'.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

They won't appear to be that failure if people know what to expect from it - which is why I pointed out managing public expectation, by engaging with the reality which is absent from so much of corbyn's proposals.

For example in one of the posts on this forum (perhaps not this thread) someone (essentially) said "nationalisation = cheaper trains". That's the sort of idea which is running riot because of the lack of management of expectations.

That sort of nonsense won a referendum campaign though. I'm not sure you can be completely upfront in the way you suggest and still be electable at this point. I kinda think you're coming at this from a point of view "well we've already lost because Corbyn, so it doesn't matter".

Were Corbyn neck and neck with May and he came out and said "we're going to nationalise the railways but it won't actually have a big impact for at least ten years" we'd likely both be calling him out for being rubbish at politics.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, FrancisH said:

I remember being pretty certain that Ed was going to spectacularly fail

What?

All indicators showed he had a decent chance. He was regularly ahead in the polls - something Jezza has never achieved.

In the last 24 hours team-Jezza has been celebrating polls saying he's just 9% behind - and Ed was never as bad as 9% behind.

[Mardy]

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but they're not the starting point. They're part of a truly massive proposed transformation of British society, where supposedly 95% will notice no negative difference onto them from that truly massive proposed transformation.

Which, i think, is more than a little unlikely. You cannot transform everything of society without society noticing, and you cannot divert resources without people noticing they've had resources diverted away from them.

That doesn't mean I don't want it, it means I'd like it sold honestly - because a lie is a lie and the difference between the lie and reality is very big.

Absolutely, I'd much prefer it to be an honest open dialogie with a mature discusion about our society and what sort of society we'd like to live in. You're right, no doubt about that, But given that we are not going to have that in the next fortnight, it comes down to what I can do within this system right now to try and improve things, in however small a way

[mjsell]

6 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

So what's the valid opinion then? Genuinely interested to hear it because other than the fact you support free school meals you've given no evidence as to why. 

I have never said I support free school meals, you have taken my questioning to mean that I do. I also do not believe I should be listened to on the matter even if I did. I do think however that these sorts of decisions should be made in part, or with  the advisory inclusion of those that deal with the school system every day, and don't just see the whole thing as a bunch of numbers on a page that could be made smaller.

My personal experience of the situation is that of relatives that work in primary schools. (two sisters, mother, and girlfriend), I would value their opinion far more than my own.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm not sure you can be completely upfront in the way you suggest and still be electable at this point.

May is.

Blair was.

 

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I kinda think you're coming at this from a point of view "well we've already lost because Corbyn, so it doesn't matter".

Go on, tell me I've got that wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Were Corbyn neck and neck with May and he came out and said "we're going to nationalise the railways but it won't actually have a big impact for at least ten years" we'd likely both be calling him out for being rubbish at politics.

Nope. Managing expectations is standard politics.

It's why May is not making promises she doesn't think she'd be able to keep. It's why Blair didn't promise the world as Corbyn is.

If Corbyn won on everything he's promised, it'll go something similar to how it went for Hollande in France.

[Bogotazo]

Ed was ahead in the polls, remain was ahead in the polls, Hillary was ahead in the polls.

Polls are on a 3 for 3 losing streak. Even if the polls are correct for the next 3 big ones then that still will only put them at 50-50 for the last 6.

Polls are for chumps.

[FrancisH]

Just now, eFestivals said:

What?

All indicators showed he had a decent chance. He was regularly ahead in the polls - something Jezza has never achieved.

In the last 24 hours team-Jezza has been celebrating polls saying he's just 9% behind - and Ed was never as bad as 9% behind.

I said I remember being pretty certain at the time, not the press or the polls being pretty certain. And yeah at the time I had a strong hunch he would fail, for a lot of reasons, because his message delivery was poor, because of the press, because we'd already been made aware at that time of how people were receiving news in echo chambers, and how polls might not be hugely reliable, and a key issue at the time was glossed over by Ed, and Cameron to his detriment was promising a referendum which shit loads of people wanted.

So it didn't take a huge imagination to see it was going to go a bit wrong.


Also yeah, Jez will fail too, he's polling badly and that's not even factoring in some of the above points. But what I'm saying I don't think it's helpful to do him down all the time when options are spread so thin - Obviously that's your choice, but I'm just commenting that I don't think it's very helpful.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

Ed was ahead in the polls, remain was ahead in the polls, Hillary was ahead in the polls.

Polls are on a 3 for 3 losing streak. Even if the polls are correct for the next 3 big ones then that still will only put them at 50-50 for the last 6.

Polls are for chumps.

The vote on 9th June is a poll. I guess you'll say a Jezza loss is really victory, cos polls are for chumps...?

Meanwhile... the final polls for the EUref had leave ahead, Hillary won the popular vote by a big margin, and Ed's polls were always borderline but overestimated the labour support and didn't under-estimate it (a very common theme with UK polls).

Edited May 22, 2017 by eFestivals

[FrancisH]

6 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

Ed was ahead in the polls, remain was ahead in the polls, Hillary was ahead in the polls.

Polls are on a 3 for 3 losing streak. Even if the polls are correct for the next 3 big ones then that still will only put them at 50-50 for the last 6.

Polls are for chumps.

True, but the trouble is when polls are wrong they tend to be wrong to the right and not to the left.

3/3 losing streak to the right.

[eFestivals]

 

4 minutes ago, FrancisH said:

But what I'm saying I don't think it's helpful to do him down all the time

and it's not been helpful to do him up, either, up into the position of leader.

*Everything* has tumbled from that initial poor decision.

[FrancisH]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

and it's not been helpful to do him up, either, up into the position of leader.

*Everything* has tumbled from that initial poor decision.

Haha fair point, alright well - as I say, I do agree with you, I just think this close to the election we're short on options.

[DeanoL]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's why May is not making promises she doesn't think she'd be able to keep. It's why Blair didn't promise the world as Corbyn is.

Sorry to steal your line but: PMSL!

You think May will be able to keep all her Brexit promises? Mate, if I believed that I might even vote Tory!